Clinical guidelines are evidence-based recommendations developed by healthcare organizations or expert panels to assist healthcare providers and patients in making appropriate and reliable decisions regarding specific health conditions, aiming to enhance the quality of healthcare by promoting best practices, reducing variations in care, and at the same time, allowing tailored clinical decision-making. European Hernia Society (EHS) guidelines aim to provide surgeons a reliable set of answers to their pertinent clinical questions and a tool to base their activity as experts in the management of abdominal wall defects. The traditional approach to guideline production is based on gathering key opinion leader in a particular field, to address a number of key questions, appraising papers, presenting evidence and produce final recommendations based on the literature and consensus. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method offers a transparent and structured process for developing and presenting evidence summaries and for carrying out the steps involved in developing recommendations. Its main strength lies in guiding complex judgments that balance the need for simplicity with the requirement for complete and transparent consideration of all important issues. EHS guidelines are of overall good quality but the application of GRADE method, began with EHS guidelines on open abdomen, and the increasing adherence to the process, has greatly improved the reliability of our guidelines. Currently, the need to application of this methodology and the creation of stable and dedicated group of researchers interested in following GRADE in the production of guidelines has been outlined in the literature. Considering that the production of clinical guidelines is a complex process, this paper aim to highlights the primary features of guideline production, GRADE methodology, the challenges associated with their adoption in the field of hernia surgery and the project of the EHS to establish a stable guidelines committee to provide technical and methodological support in update of previously published guideline or the creation of new ones.

• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

BACKGROUND: Benchmark comparisons in surgery allow identification of gaps in the quality of care provided. The aim of this study was to determine quality thresholds for high (HAR) and low (LAR) anterior resections in colorectal cancer surgery by applying the concept of benchmarking. METHODS: This 5-year multinational retrospective study included patients who underwent anterior resection for cancer in 19 high-volume centres on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 11 relevant postoperative variables at discharge, 3 months, and 6 months (for LAR). Benchmarks were calculated for two separate cohorts: patients without (ideal) and those with (non-ideal) outcome-relevant co-morbidities. Benchmark cut-offs were defined as the 75th percentile of each centre's median value. RESULTS: A total of 3903 patients who underwent HAR and 3726 who had LAR for cancer were analysed. After 3 months' follow-up, the mortality benchmark in HAR for ideal and non-ideal patients was 0.0 versus 3.0 per cent, and in LAR it was 0.0 versus 2.2 per cent. Benchmark results for anastomotic leakage were 5.0 versus 6.9 per cent for HAR, and 13.6 versus 11.8 per cent for LAR. The overall morbidity benchmark in HAR was a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) score of 8.6 versus 14.7, and that for LAR was CCI® score 11.9 versus 18.3. CONCLUSION: Regular comparison of individual-surgeon or -unit outcome data against benchmark thresholds may identify gaps in care quality that can improve patient outcome.

• MeSH
• benchmarking MeSH
• kolorektální chirurgie * MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nádory rekta * chirurgie   MeSH
• pooperační komplikace epidemiologie   etiologie   MeSH
• proktektomie * MeSH
• retrospektivní studie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH